The survey consisted of 55 questions, and was submitted to 814 developers via Game Developer Magazine, Gamasutra, and the Game Developer's Conference. The results were compiled into a 100-page report that featured many statistics about game developers, including the following:
According to the survey, "ease of development" and "market penetration" were the leading factors in choosing which platform to develop for, along with the skill sets of their team, the ability to easily port to multiple platforms, and the cost of development materials.
The full report is available for purchase from Game Developer Research for $2495. More data from the survey will be revealed in the next issue of Game Developers Magazine.
Why not? according to most, Nintendo games are all people buy on a Nintendo platform anyway, so why would no games from 3rd parties (that people aren't buying anyway) prevent them from buying a Wii2?
vudu, your criticism of the sample size fails to recognize the significant relative difference between how many of them develop for the various consoles.If 814 developers were surveyed and 69% of them are developing games for Xbox 360 that means 562 developers are working on Xbox 360 titles. To date, there are 736 retail Xbox 360 titles. The numbers are even closer for PS3--497 developers and 558 retail releases. Those numbers don't sit well with me, as I know there are quite a few developers who have several 360/PS3 titles available.
Furthermore, if the sample size was, say, 50 developers, the first criticism we'd hear is, "Oh, the sample size is so small, there are plenty of smaller developers out there who are supporting Wii."Okay, let's say we have 100 "big-name" developers and another 200 indies. That's 300. Where the heck did these other 500 come from? It just seems like an astoundingly large number.
According to the survey, "ease of development" and "market penetration" were the leading factors in choosing which platform to develop for
If 814 developers were surveyed and 69% of them are developing games for Xbox 360 that means 562 developers are working on Xbox 360 titles. To date, there are 736 retail Xbox 360 titles. The numbers are even closer for PS3--497 developers and 558 retail releases. Those numbers don't sit well with me, as I know there are quite a few developers who have several 360/PS3 titles available.
In any case, this bodes poorly for the future of Nintendo's third-party support, which appears to be falling over time.
814 developers? I think there are maybe 100 of those that matter--tops. The rest create shovelware, cell phone games, small PC games, etc.
69% of CONSOLE developers, which is only 41 percent of all developers polled.I missed that part. Thank you for pointing it out. These new numbers jive a lot more with what I expected to see.
That's 69% of 334 developers, which is 230 developers out of 814 were working on Xbox 360 games, not 562. Likewise, 133 on Wii.
The second and third place consoles have more devs on board than the market leading console. The market leading console is ALWAYS supposed to have the most because they attract all the best and all the worst. Third party developers do not consider the market leading console to be the best choice to make money on. They're insane.
According to the survey, "ease of development" and "market penetration" were the leading factors in choosing which platform to develop for
Third party developers do not consider the market leading console to be the best choice to make money on. That's insane.
Fixed. I read another report similar in topic that had developers closing their doors and going bankrupt more quickly than ever before. I wonder if that study and this study are somehow related.
Like I said in the Wii Rumor thread, I think Nintendo need to go all out for their next system. Spend some money (they have enough of it) and give produce something that will make Sony and Microsoft quake in fear. Go back to proper controller and keep everyone happy. Don't fix what isn't broken. If third parties are prefer to spend <spoiler>risk</spoiler> millions making something for an HD console rather than its cheaper counterpart then lets give them something they want to develop for.So basically, you want Nintendo to make the next PS3?
QuoteFixed. I read another report similar in topic that had developers closing their doors and going bankrupt more quickly than ever before. I wonder if that study and this study are somehow related.
I agree with you in that it makes no sense. But the sheer numbers suggests to me that there's more to this than meets the eye. Every company cannot be stupid. The sheer odds of that are impossible. It just seems like there must be some factor that we can't truly see from the outside.
Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore? Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles. The PS360 requires the extra manhours to pour over the visuals and the little details. The Wii requires one to program motion control which might just be WAY out of most dev's league. Remember that Nintendo isn't some small dev. They're a huge company. They had the resources to design the remote in the first place so they have qualified individuals to make it work with their games. Other devs don't have that. The HD visuals may be expensive but at least it's something a dev may already know how to do. The Wii is still very complex, just in a different way.
I wonder if Nintendo's support and documentation for the remote is any good. That would easily explain why Nintendo, who has full knowledge of the device, can make Wii magic and everyone else ****s the bed. My company needs to make a new game and I can either **** around with the remote and bug Nintendo for info that they may or may not provide to me or I can make something for the other consoles where at the very least I'm confident my team knows what they're doing. It's easier to work with something familiar.
Is it possible that HD games and remote games are both huge financial risks?
It must be tough for third-parties to hitch their wagon exclusively to the Wii, when there's no guarantee that their non-Mario/Zelda/Kart/Metroid/Sports/Fit game will even sell.
Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".
I guess third-parties are taking that to heart, and aren't trying to "get it" any more.
I agree with you completely Ian. The truth is that developers are seeing failure across all three consoles. Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire. But the truth is that there's more to the gaming industry than just making a game and releasing it. Developers are now facing a problem. The HD consoles may be more popular with the gaming crowd, but they require a lot more money and effort. The Wii has a much, much bigger fanbase but it doesn't guarantee that the game will be successful. So what to do? None of the systems guarantee success and profitability and both require a lot of money behind a project.
Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire.
Besides, it's not like Nintendo cares about these third-parties anyways, really.
Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".
Wow! Third parties are GUARANTEED sales on the PC/360/PS3? Holy mackerel! No wonder Nintendo can't attract them.
But Nintendo isn't sitting back. They are also the best game makers on the Wii and going by units-sold and dollars generated this generation, the best developer, period. And third parties don't "get it." They flooded the Wii with Shovelware and now everybody wants to basically buy only Nintendo games because they have a great reputation and third parties do not. So sorry that they make awful games, but Nintendo did not point a gun to their head and tell them to make garbage.
That will be incredibly short-sighted of them, considering Microsoft and Sony will be pushing motion controllers too. So they'll have to learn it one way or another. Motion controls aren't going anywhere, and they are missing out on, at the very least, practice for Natal and the Sony Wand. And after they practice they can make a press release where they ditch the Wii and blame it for poor sales of Pigpen Casino: 23 Games. That will be disturbing, but expected.
And yet people complain when third-parties treat Nintendo in the same flippant manner.
Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?
Wii is where original IPs go to die
Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER? Hell, even when Activision publicly threatened to pull PS3 support, Sony didn't say anything bad about them! That's because they need to stay on good terms with third parties, because they need that third-party dough coming in.
Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).
Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore? Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles.
Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even. They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.If that's the truth, the industry is headed the way of the American real estate market. And knowing the two HD companies, they would probably try to make the consumers pay for it. Isn't it great we don't have to mortgage our games?
Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.
The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles, business wise.
Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even. They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.
The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles, business wise.
Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even. They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.
Never break even? Is that really true?
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/ (http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/)
Quarterly Financial ComparisonAnd that doesn't even factor in the $Billion they set aside for RRoD repairs before they shifted around their departments so that the $Billion loss was subsidized into a different department.
Sony / Nintendo / Micosoft (Operating Income)Code: [Select]Sony Nintendo Microsoft Total
Y/E 1998 $902,811,090 $1,023,333,867 $1,926,144,957
Y/E 1999 $1,102,563,557 $1,301,350,000 $2,403,913,557
Y/E 2000 $722,738,949 $1,368,207,547 $2,090,946,497
Y/E 2001 -$449,776,290 $677,576,000 $227,799,710
Y/E 2002 $629,101,056 $895,872,180 -$1,135,000,000 $389,973,237
Y/E 2003 $935,569,253 $834,333,333 -$1,191,000,000 $578,902,586
Y/E 2004 $627,195,212 $993,161,303 -$1,337,000,000 $283,356,515
Y/E 2005 $419,888,799 $1,056,056,202 -$539,000,000 $936,945,001
Y/E 2006 $69,129,058 $774,478,055 -$1,339,000,000 -$495,392,887
Y/E 2007 -$1,970,923,859 $1,914,666,388 -$1,969,000,000 -$2,025,257,471
Y/E 2008 -$1,079,994,103 $4,322,637,887 $426,000,000 $3,668,643,783
Y/E 2009 -$664,313,787 $5,691,428,301 $169,000,000 $5,196,114,515
Y/E 10Q1 -$413,541,667 $420,843,750 $312,000,000 $319,302,083
Y/E 10Q2 -$653,333,333 $710,655,556 $375,000,000 $432,011,111
Y/E 10Q3 $210,629,750 $2,087,904,452 N/A N/A
Total
$387,078,407 $24,072,504,822 -$6,157,000,000 $16,004,049,028
Full Year Average
$103,665,745 $1,737,758,422 -$1,001,857,143 $914,270,499
Profitable Years
8 12 2 10
Non Profitable Years
4 0 6 2
Average in Loss Year
-$1,041,252,010 N/A -$1,251,666,667 -$1,260,325,179
Average in Profit Year
$676,124,622 $1,737,758,422 $333,000,000 $1,389,625,094
Sony 3rd Quarter 2010 FY earnings (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/09q3_sony.pdf) / Nintendo 3rd Quarter 2010 FY earnings (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2010/100128e.pdf) / Microsoft 2nd Quarter 2010 FY earnings (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/fy10/earn_rel_q2_10.mspx)
I don't remember the article, but they restructured their departments from something like Xbox division to Entertainment division and they set aside that $billion just before doing it and swallowed it in a much more profitable division so that it wouldn't show on 2008/2009 financial sheet when looking at the Entertainment division. At least that's how I remember it.
as far as MS's profits, even with a $426M & $169M in 08/09, they are still $6.1B* in the hole for the entire Xbox project. $2.6B* of that is for the X360 alone
*(not including the RRoD $B)
The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles, business wise.
Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even. They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.
Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.
I never said that. I was simply stating that the "developers that matter" see making games for Wii as riskier than making PC-style games, which is something they're already good at.
Again, I never said Nintendo was "sitting back" when it comes to THEIR OWN own titles. My point was that they don't need third-parties when it comes right down to it, so they don't give two ****s about catering to them.
Do you think Nintendo had third-parties in mind when they developed their convoluted Friend Code system? Bwahahahahaha. That was Nintendo looking out for Nintendo. Which is 100% what they should be doing, but don't complain when third parties give them the cold shoulder.
They already have PS3 and 360 dev environments set up, so they can tool around as much as they want. How much "practice" do they need?
Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).
BSoD was a whole different situation though.
Windows practically came with every computer for free and every software was made with Windows support in mind. You had almost no choice in the matter.
Xbox 360 and the RRoD is an option I chose to avoid even though I was really tempted to buy one many times over the last 3-4 years. I know for sure I won't be an early adopter next cycle either with all the problems they had this time around.
Crashing software is one thing, failing hardware another.
Crashing software is one thing, failing hardware another.
And Microsoft achieves both--
--oh dear, my comment might come across as negative!
"Of the mobile developers, almost 75 percent were working on games for iPhone OS. Less than half of this percentage was working on either a Nintendo DS or Sony PSP game."
Definitely shows that the iPhone is capable of biting at least some chunk out of the ds/psp market. Should be interesting to see just how many in the heard migrate over to the new source of games, and how many consume both options.
Facebook is the next killer platform. Farmville doesn't require skill, just time! Perfect!
We need a new genre to reinvigorate the industry. Somebody invent the text adventure.
They've done plenty, even designing the Wii to be easy to develop for, possibly because it was the number #1 issue for third parties.
But that would mean putting in extra effort to find those tools, but if it means M&Ms Kart Racer would be easier to make, it could be beneficial.
Once again, I understand your point. But it doesn't change the fact that the Wii/GC was designed to be easy to program for.
No offense, but that logic is retarded.
No offense, but that logic is retarded.
As the company owner, I would first see the massive potential in making games for the Wii. After the initial research for potential market gaps for my games, I would take a month to two months delay transitioning my star developers. I would buy the dev kits, licenses and also popular games on the console. Each day I would ask them to show me something new they've learned, and have them log any potential ideas they might have. By the end of the month-two months, I would compile those ideas and start production on my first Wii game. But I know I don't need the first game to be a smashing success. It merely need to make it to turn a profit so I can sustain myself and pay for the last two months. The game after that though, I shoot for the moon.
All I'm saying is, I would rather have my team goof around learning the Wii hardware then spend millions of dollars making a game for a system that has literally 1/4 of the potential customers. Even if my game is bought by everyone on that system, I could still have made more money (factoring developing costs) if only 1 out of every 2 people bought it on the Wii.
QuoteNo offense, but that logic is retarded.
So is not supporting the market leader. But that's the reality so I'm trying to figure out a reason for it other than "EVERYONE HATES NINTENDO!"
If Nintendo had not made the Wii hardware so vastly different than the competition do you think these same third parties would ignore it? Even if it's done largely innocently or was necessary for the Wii's success, Nintendo is somewhat responsible for the problem because of their design choices. If they were more conventional the problem would likely not exist at all.
Just watch the amount of effort that goes into Arc & Natal though.
Ian is not just talking about HD but the architecture of the entire system. Programming for 360 is like programming for a PC with a dedicated and universal control pad. So most any PC game can go straight to the 360 without a hitch.
Motion controls are too different for most devs.
If The Wii is so much poison for third parties, how come Nintendo's pulling down record profits and most of the third parties are otherwise struggling, even with their minimal to nonexistent development focus for Wii? Nintendo's making more profit and selling more games than basically all game companies combined.
Hey the third parties have been running a very effective advertising campaign too. And it speaks louder than any TV, print, or web campaign. Here's a sample:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Deguello/3rd-Party-Wii-Game-2.gif)
Effective, yes. Just not in the way they thought.
I honestly doubt these third parties would support Nintendo if only the Wii were HD capable. That is your argument, right?
Since Nintendo makes the best games on the Wii, and their games sell the most, isn't this more of an issue of third parties not making good enough games overall? Like if they took Wii development more seriously from day one instead of shovelwaring the whole place and fouling up their reputation.
And Namco did give the Wii some sort of Soul Calibur product. Why would they make TWO different games if they could just make ONE game for all THREE?
And Namco did give the Wii some sort of Soul Calibur product. Why would they make TWO different games if they could just make ONE game for all THREE?
Namco ported SC4 to the PSP. (http://psp.ign.com/articles/101/1019792p1.html)
The PSP.
The PSP.
The industry has something against Nintendo. The sooner everybody accepts this the sooner we can move on from these kinds of discussions.
For years I complained about the third party support and was told to buy a second console. This was seen as some sort of requirement for a core gamer.
I guess what I meant to say, if they are GOOD GAMES that sell better than their predecessors, then my point will be proven.Could Nintendo be relevent since their Wii entries of their franchises outsold their Gamecube entries, and in some extreme cases the total Gamecube sales?
RE4 Wii AND Umbrella Chronicles outsold Bionic Commando PS3/360. Has Dark Void flopped yet?
no no no, simply third parties only.
Honestly, I've ALWAYS considered multiconsole ownership a requirement for the full hardcore gamer experience, even as far back the the 32/64-bit generation.I've considered it a requirement ever since gaming first began. Each system has its own lineup of exclusive games that you're just not going to find anywhere else. There is not and has never been a system with a fully diverse library of games, each system lacked in at least one type or genre that another system excelled. To play all the best games, you've always needed more than a single system.
